How much Buddhism is there in pragmatic dharma?

Is it valid to call oneself or ones practice Buddhist if one is pragmatically using parts of a tradition but not the whole of it? Which parts? Which whole?

http://zennist.typepad.com/zenfiles/2012/03/geeky-buddhism.html

It made me think about my relationship to Christianity. I have been saturating myself in Christian mysticism lately, reading St. Ignatius, St. John of the Cross, etc. I spent the last couple months praying the rosary as part of my daily practice. I find a lot of the stuff in those old texts profoundly resonant with my personal experience.

I even contacted a local contemplative Christian group, thinking of going to see if I might meet some like minded people. And then I thought, I am hardly a Christian in the common sense of the word. I don't know the first thing about what people learn in church and Sunday school. Do I have any place in that world? It would be bizarre for me to call myself a Christian. It wouldn't really be true.

Thoughts on the article or related subjects?

Is it valid to call oneself or ones practice Buddhist if one is pragmatically using parts of a tradition but not the whole of it? Which parts? Which whole?
[url]

It made me think about my relationship to Christianity. I have been saturating myself in Christian mysticism lately, reading St. Ignatius, St. John of the Cross, etc. I spent the last couple months praying the rosary as part of my daily practice. I find a lot of the stuff in those old texts profoundly resonant with my personal experience.
I even contacted a local contemplative Christian group, thinking of going to see if I might meet some like minded people. And then I thought, I am hardly a Christian in the common sense of the word. I don't know the first thing about what people learn in church and Sunday school. Do I have any place in that world? It would be bizarre for me to call myself a Christian. It wouldn't really be true.
Thoughts on the article or related subjects?

-ona

On the article:

I really don't think it is a valid criticism of "geeky buddhism," if geeky buddhism is what goes on at the Buddhist Geeks site. Vince has always had real serious Buddhist practioners who I think would qualifiy as "Buddhists" on his show and I think he and the podcasts take Buddhism very serious. I also think for the most part Buddhist Geek refers to a person who is just really into Buddhism and knows all the books and schools and practices and goes to retreats and is maybe younger and into the internet at the same time.

However, if the question is, if someone who is just maybe praticing vipassana at home or just reading books on zen while placing a buddha statue in their garden without really getting into the entirety of the practices, texts and even rituals of one of the main schools of buddhism, I think you could possibly say that that person wasn't necessarily a "buddhist."

Now, for Christianity, I have a very loose definition: you can be a Christian and do Christian contemplative practices as long as one is at least inspired by the teachings and story of Jesus' life. That would be a bare minimum. Of course, a lot of Christian would find that much too liberal. But there are others like you out there Ona, who just go for a direct relationship with Jesus in their own way and using their own choice of practices (my wife is an example) who aren't too worried about whether or not they fit into traditional Christianity.

I agree with Mike. There seems to be a continuum that might be labeled close-mindedness on one extreme and openness on the other. I've encountered Christians that lie all across this spectrum: from the one who told me I was going to burn in hell to the one who is so gracious and spiritual that I felt a natural affinity with her. I assume that it is the same with any tradition. There are those that rigidly adhere to traditions and dogma and those that see it merely as a guidepost or an entry in a more globalized, inclusive tradition. Thinking about it, Spiral Dynamics ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_Dynamics ) is probably useful here too: the dogmatists would be clustered around the blue level whereas the more open-minded folks are probably more green/yellow. So, Ona, if this contemplative group is more green/yellow leaning, you might just fit in real nicely! They might not even care if you're "Christian" or not.

Ona, have you ever looked into the "Creation Spirituality" of former priest Matthew Fox?

http://www.creationspirituality.info/Fox.html

Or, books like "Son of Man," by -- Andrew Harvey ? -- http://www.andrewharvey.net/

If not, you might be inspred.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0767903005/qid=1034626534/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-3261531-2093453?v=glance

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1564556239/qid=1034626399/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-3261531-2093453?v=glance

I actually learned about both of these men from one of my pastors at the Modesto Church of the Brethren -- a very liberal, but definitely Christian Chruch. The church has a meditation/quiet room and I used to sit and do contemplative prayer with a group there led by the both pastors.

Thanks for the recommendations, Mike.

That article was a bore. It's usually easy to tell when someone criticizes an idea prior to making any attempt at actually comprehending it. The Zennist doesn't get it, I'm afraid.

Whenever you run into folks asking, "Is this real ____?" where the blank is some religious or philosophical position, there's a good chance the questioner has already narrowly defined it, and the answer will almost always be "No!" and followed by a list of criteria the position does not meet.

Boring.

Jake2, you might be on to something with your mention of spiral dynamics. I'm not a huge fan of SD in general, but I do appreciate developmental perspectives.

One of the more useful ideas in cognitive psychology is that, when faced with facts that don't seamlessly align with our going understanding of the world (aka, schema), we tend to respond with one of three common cognitive processes: assimilation (frame the facts in terms of the current schema), accommodation (adjust the schema to make room for the facts), or over-accommodation (radically alter the existing schema in ways that are uncalled for, and thus, unhelpful).

This process/response that generally leads to further growth (and development) is healthy accommodation. Staunchly conservative and dogmatic types tend to refuse accommodations, and thus either deny the veracity of the facts that don't fit, or interpret them in ways which allow them to fit into the existing schema. A lot of energy goes into this process, which is probably why so many of these types seem to get so worked up over opposing perspectives.

Besides, in what context does it matter whether something really is or is not real Buddhism? The goal of Buddhism seems to be the end of dispensible suffering. Call me naive, but it seems like a pragmatic goal, not a dogmatic one. If innovations in other realms of science and psychology is shown to move people toward this end, how is this not Buddhism, at least in some sense?

I used to look at the "Zennist" years ago and he/she always seemed kind of mean spirited and mostly incomprehensible.

I think most of us here know that his description of Buddhist Geeks was superficial and incorrect, right?

Though I certainly think I'm neither a geek or a real buddhist and probably in some way the kind of person he was TRYING to criticize because I just want to take the parts of buddhist practices that are palatable to me and then use those to create my own discoveries of truth and wisdom.

Tomo, here's an example:



A person is walking down the street and witnessing a terrible car accident, with huge explosions and multiple deaths - all in plain view. Prior to seeing this event, a person may have had a schema of, "The world is a safe place." Seeing this event challenges this schema, so assimilation is unlikely. The person is left with the option of accommodation.



Regular, healthy accommodation would be something like, "Dangerous things happen, but the world is mostly safe, most of the time."



Unhealthy over-accommodation would be, "The world is completely unsafe!" It's too big of a leap in the other direction, and is just as inflexible (in the terms of cognitive theory, "irrational").



I don't like cognitive theory all that much, but this illustration is helpful. In general, over-accommodation is more like swinging from one pole to another, rather than arriving at a more balanced view.

I was raised by an over-accommodater.

I was raised by an over-accommodater.



-michaelmonson

Ditto. PTSD FTW.

However, I now see the world as generally safe and people as generally loving, trustworthy and well-intentioned most of the time.

Took a little wrangling to rework the point of view, but it's a much nicer one in terms of stress levels.

When my mother was younger she heard about a bridge collapse and then refused to be in a car going over bridges. However, of course she couldn't hold to this in every situation so I can remember my mother sitting the passenger seat as my father drove over a bridge covering her eyes and moaning until we got to the other side.

I think she became LESS of an over-accommodater once she and my dad retired and all the kids were gone. They spent 22 years "RVing" all over the country and I know she did things on those trips she'd never have done when I was a child.

One thing I'm sure she never got over: when she was about five some other kid put her head under water at a pool and she thinks she almost drowned. She never ever swam. Ever. But, she was very into making sure all us kids got lessons and became comfortable in the water.

And, yes, I think she had much early trauma from being abandoned constantly by both parents.

Edit: I guess the bridge collapse and fear of water were related.